Lawsuit against SeaWorld tossed: Park not liable for woman's 'hit by duck' claims

SeaWorld not liable for woman's 'hit by duck' claims

A lawsuit filed against SeaWorld, after a woman claimed she was hit in the face by a duck, was dismissed.

ORLANDO, Fla. - A lawsuit against SeaWorld — alleging that the park failed to keep safe conditions after a woman said she was hit in the face by a duck while riding a roller coaster — is now dismissed. 

The lawsuit claimed SeaWorld was negligent for putting a roller coaster near a body of water that would attract ducks. 

The backstory:

In March 2025, Hillary Martin said she was hit in the face by a duck and knocked unconscious while riding the Mako roller coaster at SeaWorld. 

In a complaint Martin filed on Oct. 27, the complaint said SeaWorld failed to keep its premises in a "reasonably safe condition" and did not warn visitors about any dangerous conditions at the park.

However, SeaWorld later sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Martin was hit by a migratory bird – a Snowy Egret – not a duck. In its Nov. 19 motion to dismiss, the company claimed it can't be legally held responsible for "a wild animal’s actions." 

SeaWorld also said Martin refused medical transport because she "wanted to keep going in the park and did not want to be held up any longer," SeaWorld said in the filing and didn’t seek medical treatment until the day after her visit to the park. 

What we know:

 An Orange County Circuit Court judge granted SeaWorld's motion on Jan. 6, dismissing the lawsuit. 

Citing a 1986 case, Palumbo v. State Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission – in which a plaintiff sued for negligence after being attacked by an alligator at a recreational park – the court found that Martin's case falls within the purview of the 1986 case, requiring Martin to allege that SeaWorld either owned the bird or had brought the bird to the park. 

Due to the bird being a wild animal – falling under wild animal conduct – the court said the zone of risk theory needs to comply with Palumbo. 

What they're saying:

FOX 35 News spoke to a local attorney, Michael Panella, to break down why the judge ruled the way he did. Panella is not involved in the SeaWorld case.

"The judge ordered that SeaWorld can’t be held responsible for the conduct of a bird flying in the air because it wasn’t foreseeable that they would have known it was there and was actually going to hurt someone," Panella said.

Panella explained that, in order for her to win this case, she would need to show that SeaWorld owned or controlled that animal or prove that it wasn’t native to Florida and that SeaWorld introduced that animal into the area.

What's next:

Martin has 20 days to file an amended complaint.